Bowman v. Cecil Bank
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to tbe Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County. Tbe plaintiffs in error were defendants below. Assumpsit. On tbe 20th day of May, A. D. 1856, Peter M. Hanna drew bis bill of exchange on Thomas & Eogers, of Baltimore, as follows:— “$400. Williamsport, May 20,1856. Sixty days after date, pay to the order of myself, four hundred dollars, value received, and place to account of Peter M. Hanna. Thomas & Eodgers, . Baltimore, Maryland.”
Read the full summary
Error to tbe Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County. Tbe plaintiffs in error were defendants below. Assumpsit. On tbe 20th day of May, A. D. 1856, Peter M. Hanna drew bis bill of exchange on Thomas & Eogers, of Baltimore, as follows:— “$400. Williamsport, May 20,1856. Sixty days after date, pay to the order of myself, four hundred dollars, value received, and place to account of Peter M. Hanna. Thomas & Eodgers, . Baltimore, Maryland.” Indorsed “ Wm, McKinney, Bowman, Mabie & Co., Peter M. Hanna.” The bill of exchange, so- indorsed, was taken to Messrs. Tomb & McCurdy by Peter M. Hanna,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion .of the court was delivered
by Lowrie, C. J.
The very form of this bill is prima facie evidence that the defendants below are accommodation indorsers for Hanna, for he drew the bill payable to his own ordér, and yet he does not indorse it except under the other indorsers. The actual proof that the agents of the bank discounted the bill for the benefit of Hanna, adds force to this prima facie evidence. But either is sufficient to throw upon the bank the burden of proving that Mabie indorsed the name of the firm with the consent of the co-partners, for the law does not presume that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Mitchell v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1804
3Cited by1 opinion
- McSparran v. NeeleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1879